I'd wager most of us here have been punished by bad science and bad scientists at some point in our lives, if not all along the way.

Where things really went bad was with the misguided attempts in the 20th c. to expunge philosophy, specifically metaphysics, from the sciences. The domination of the landscape by Logical Positivism, Logical Empiricism, and its offspring such as Skinnerian Behaviorism, represented a bleak period in history, not just for human knowledge, but for the human condition.

Metaphysics, just the ordinary business of reasoning about unobservables (and nothing to do with mysticism), eventually made a return in the early 1970s with the publication of a seminal work, easily the most important work of philosophy published in more than a half century. Anyone know what this work is? I ask because most people don't, and that illustrates my point keenly. [Answer to come.] The importance of metaphysics has not to date made itself understood in any of the scientific fields, specifically the social sciences, and progress is not nearly what it could and should be. But there are important contributions out there in naturalist philosophy, just not where they do most of us any good.

Science is a natural kind. It exists independently of any of our attempts to characterize it. It exists in a natural tendency, and it is surprisingly robust, robust enough to give the illusion that we're somehow always on the right track, even when we aren't. So when I say the social sciences are proper sciences, it's because they are, and it just so happens that they are done badly most of the time. As a science that is heavy on the metaphysics component, it is more difficult to "see" the answers, and for the most part, all we have is a historical web of reasoning stretching back 2500 years to draw on.

No one today is particularly proud of the relocation centers established for Japanese Americanson the West Coast, but no one today can understand the situation in which Pearl Harbor placed this country - very much like being stabbed in the back by someone we had (stupidly)bent over backwards to accommodate. Nor were these camps "concentration camps." That's total nonsense and cultural arrogance, regardless of how dispirited some of those unfortunate souls appeared to be. The Japanese in Hawaii, many of whom were first generation and a group that comprised a very large segment of the population, was not affected by the order to relocate into camps.

...but no one today can understand the situation in which Pearl Harbor placed this country

Well, actually I can, Bike. I was almost twelve on December 7, 1941, and I was the one who heard the news on the radio and ran to tell my folks and grandparents (we were visiting them). I was delivering the Detroit News then, and after December 7th I often had to get out in the middle of the night and yell "Extra! Extra! Read all about it."

Quote

- very much like being stabbed in the back by someone we had (stupidly) bent over backwards to accommodate.

Well, the actual history is a bit more complicated than that. In those days the leaders in the home island were a warlike, nasty people. But I was in Japan seven years after the surrender and I can tell you the average Japanese isn't like that at all. We certainly weren't bending over backward to accomodate them. We were doing whatever we could to get them out of China., and there was no doubt in any rational mind that war with Japan was imminent.

Quote

Nor were these camps "concentration camps." That's total nonsense and cultural arrogance, regardless of how dispirited some of those unfortunate souls appeared to be. The Japanese in Hawaii, many of whom were first generation and a group that comprised a very large segment of the population, was not affected by the order to relocate into camps.

Yes, and eventually we let the Nisei fight for their country, and they did a hell of a job. The camps were a panicky, irrational reaction, and the whole thing is a blight on our history.

Yes Adams shot some landscapes around Manzanar, and they are useful in explaining the desolation of the place.

Adams didn't shoot many anguished faces at Manzanar. In general his human subjects appear rather upbeat, presented sympathetically as ordinary people at a time when mindless racism cast them as somehow malevolent. Overall I think Adam's characterizations were of greater service to the internees than Lange's. By the editorial standards of the time Adam's work was more presentable than Lange's somewhat amateurish point & shoot efforts.

In looking over some of those pictures I personally get the feeling that Adam's was more connected with his subjects than Lange.